"Can RDI policies cross borders? The case of Nordic-Baltic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

"Can RDI policies cross borders? The case of Nordic-Baltic region" Piret Tõnurist Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance

Methodology • Review of academic work concerning RDI internationalization • A meta-analysis of the available and relevant policy and policy evaluation documents within the region were carried out • Between November 2014 and February 2015 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with both inductive and deductive questions were carried out with 14 executives of innovation agencies and research councils (i.e. key public funding agencies) from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. • Additionally, organizational manager of NordForsk, executive director of BONUS EEIG and the lead partner of the program BSR Stars (both transnational programs) were interviewed • The unit of analysis is kept on the country level and RDI programs etc. are examined as manifestations of the countries broader stance on policies

Why RDI systems need to internationalize? In theory and in practice internationalization is justified by the following reasons: • Critical mass for scientific excellence and innovation • R&D networks to participate in global competition and solve grand challenges (e.g., climate change) (Reale et al. 2012; Edler et al. 2003) • Small states do not have the capacity to participate in all R&D + small states ‘go global’ much faster

All the following indicators are growing: • number of joint publications, patents and research projects; • researcher mobility; • private global value chains of production and innovation; • fees from internationally licensing intellectual property ; • FDI Gunnarsson et al. (2010, 36).

Analytical matrix Science  Science Science  Economy Level/Modality Global level University rankings, established FDI, export etc. policies, WTO excellence-based evaluation agreements (WoS) EU FPs, Centres of Excellence Technology platforms, internal market Region inside the Finance of supra-regional Supra-regional infrastructure EU cooperation, ERA-nets projects State Cooperation, support of mobility MNCs in local research centres University Multi- and bilateral contracts Support of international IP Science group Participation in joint projects Subcontracting Scientist Joint articles, research Subcontracting, sale of IP

Mechanism of convergence Multidirectional cooperation Unidirectional cooperation Horiz Transnational communication Regulatory competition ontal Premise: existence of a common problem Premise: high level of economic integration, strategic Mechanisms: lesson drawing, transnational dependence problem solving (elite networks with high level of Mechanisms: emulation legitimacy) Proximity: high geographic proximity; low levels of institutional Proximity: not too low or high cognitive proximity and social proximity that allows learning; physical proximity (tacit Direction: policy convergence, but possible downgrading of knowledge flows); some level of institutional, standards and push for liberalization social and organisational proximity Direction: possible initial convergence of selective Independent problem solving parts of policy with an upward spread of Premise: similar problem acknowledgement (parallel domestic convergence; increase in cognitive proximity pressure) Mechanisms: domestic learning, no transnational communication Proximity: some degree of cognitive, social, institutional proximity Direction: impossible to predict patters Verti International harmonization Imposition/coercion cal Premise: legal norm, union with several member Premise: asymmetrical power relations, capacity to impose policy countries, capacity to enforce compliance by political or economic means Mechanisms: international policy promotion Mechanisms: formal or informal pressure (possibly through Proximity: at least some organisational and resource dependence) institutional proximity Proximity: low levels of social and cognitive proximity Direction: upward movement of minimal Direction: impossible to predict patterns standardisation; can create asymmetric, efficiency-driven integration

Cross-border RDI policies The EU has two parallel momentums -- gradual ‘trickle down’ experimentation: EU’s funding mechanisms at different levels (EU, regional etc.) follow scientific excellence; better quality -> higher internationalization -- regional self-generated bottom-up collaboration : similar development level -> higher internationalization Challenge: RDI collaboration between countries on different development level? -> is it possible?

Advantages and disadvantages of different funding models Advantages Disadvantages Money follows Simulates cross-border funding National legislation may need amendments cooperation Money follows Better exploitation of individual expertise Salary differentials and imbalances researcher Virtual common Compatible with national schemes (joint call Some approved proposals may be declined funding on the pot funded in accordance with national national level Conflict between funding ‘excellence’ and available regulations), decentralized decision making, funding only in national boarders – national funds simplifies rules, no ‘juste retour’ problem Administrative costs high due to variety of national rules, but no adaption costs involved Post-evaluation Funding commitment only after evaluation Some initially approved proposals may be declined funding common pot of projects (increase in the number of on the national level and surpassed by less deserving (mixed model) projects); decentralized decision making, projects depending on the availability of national funds Conflict between funding ‘excellence’ and available funding only in national boarders/compatible with national systems, national funds no ‘juste retour’ problem Real common Funding of excellence (selection follows Difficult to set up, requires common rules (contribution, pot ranking), centralized decision making, eligibility, overhead etc.) simple selection procedure Funding my clash with national interests and need for contextualization Possible exclusion of participants based on national legislation Balanced Proposed selection may follow ranking, Requires long-term commitment common pot topping-up possible from the EU Era-Net Model may allow distorted exploitation of the system Plus experience

Regional tendencies I Based on the measures towards the support of joint research agendas Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark and Finland are above EU-averages , while the Baltic States were implementing measures below EU-average in 2013 . With a closer look at the R&D budgets of EU countries, Denmark contributed the most to jointly defined research agendas proportionally from its budget followed distantly by Finland and Sweden , while the Baltic States have almost no contribution to the former (ERA Progress Report, 2014).

Regional tendencies II When looking at the levels of participation in Era-Nets, some countries try to cover a maximum number of frameworks (e.g. Finland, Sweden), while others try to be more present in specific networks and take on coordinating roles in the former (e.g. Denmark). The first strategy can be described as ‘ observing and learning ’ (Pérez, 2010) in which small countries try to be at minimum present for possible future need to translate frontier scientific knowledge to the society (Ukrainski et al ., 2014).

Regional tendencies III Seeing the levels of openness it is not surprising that the ‘core’ Nordic countries research has strongly internationalized since the 1980s onward to the degree that on average half the articles produced are co-authored by someone abroad (Gunnarsson et al. 2010).

Some examples from interviews: “ A lot of the cooperation is bottom-up and it has probably much higher numbers – we just don’t see it nor how much money goes outside. Norway expects that money is taken outside of the country, but it still in the end benefits Norwegian research .”

„ Norwegian international innovation connections have been built up based on strong historical industrial ties : for example with the UK and the Netherlands in oil and gas, in fisheries with Denmark and new collaboration between Norwegian-Danish regions in biotech .” “ I think that the cooperation in innovation starts with the industrial structure – when industrial structures have big similarities then it is more easy to reach topical, thematic projects that build on common synergies as for example in the forest industry in Sweden and Finland .”

„ Depending on the needs of the technology , RDI networks can differ and in some cases (e.g., ICT); they can start on the international level and surpass the Nordic dimension entirely and collaboration has been directly established with the US. " “ I guess with collaboration with the Baltic States it shouldn’t be forced . If there is interests in doing something and actors who are also willing to participate and invest then we can do something. But geography cannot be the only catalyst for collaboration .”